Hi all,

Since I've got myself an iPad, good WiFi coverage in the house has become more important to me. When I built this house, I installed more than 50 ethernet connectors into the walls, throughout the house. (even though to this day not all are connected the the switch, but I could easily do this if needed because I'm using a patch panel in a server cabinet).

Now, the server cabinet is downstairs, and my router, a D-Link DIR-655 is also located there. This gives me good WLAN coverage on the ground level, but on the first floor, there are some dead spots. On the second level, the attic, it's obviously even worse.

Now, since I've got so many wall connections, even in the attic's walls, I'm guessing the easiest way to solve my dead spots problem is to put an access point in the attic. I've got a few questions though, since I've never installed an access point before.

The way I believe it works, is I need an ethernet cable from my main router to this access point. (easily done with all this ethernet cable in the walls). Then I need to make sure its own IP address is outside the DHCP range on my main router, but within the correct subnet of course.

Eg. My main routers IP: 192.168.0.1, DHCP: 192.168.0.100 to 192.168.0.199. (all subnet 255.255.255.0) So I need to put the access point's IP to something like 192.168.0.200, correct? Or does it really need to be inside the scope of the main router's DHCP, but provide it with a more or less fixed IP then (I can have the main router's DHCP always hand out the same IP to devices, based on their MAC address).

Will the DHCP of the main router then hand out the IP addresses on the LAN, even if devices connect via the Access Point?
Can the WiFi security settings in the Access Point be exactly the same as the ones in the main router? Or will this interfere with one another? Same with WiFi channels?

Now, with regards to the Access Point, I like this D-Link DAP-1522 wireless access point/bridge. It should do nicely. As a bonus, this Access Point includes two radios, the classic 2.4 Ghz and the newer 5 Ghz. I wasn't considering using the 5 Ghz radio, but yesterday I've read that a lot of notebooks now already support the 5 Ghz radios, it seems most recent MacBook Pro's support it. Anybody know if the iPad also supports 5 Ghz WiFi?

Another question: this D-Link DAP-1522 is both a Access Point and Bridge combined. You can set the desired function with a switch on its back. (there also an 'auto' function, but that doesn't seem to work well according to a review I've read). Now, I was wondering, what exactly is a bridge, and how does it differ from an access point? In which situation could a bridge be interesting to me, knowing I'm using this in a relatively small home LAN network?

Now, lastly, it seems most routers can be put in 'Access Point mode'. Why wouldn't I just buy another router then, configure it as an access point and use it like that? For one, incredibly enough, routers are cheaper. I can buy a second d-link DIR-655, the same models as I've already got, for about 60 euro. The forementioned DAP-1522 Access Point/bride costs 95 euro! Ok, you say, but that access point has got 2 radios and the router does not. This is true, but the D-Link 825 router had this too, IS a router and costs only 85 euro, so that's still 10 euro less than the access point. If I were to go the 'two router' route (haha) I would also have the benefit of having a second router in the house. Should one go belly-up, at least it wouldn't take down my entire network. So many benefits, it makes me wonder: where's the catch here? Why would anyone still use a normal access point, since they are more expensive and have less functions?

I'm looking forward to you comments!

Any Macbook (the name for all the Intel Mac laptops) support 5GHz. Older ones supported this via 802.11a (54mbit), and newer ones support it via 802.11n (150mbit). The iPad (either version) also supports 5ghz via 802.11n. The iPhone/iPod touch only support 2.4ghz, and I believe pretty much every other WiFi smartphone also only supports 2.4.

Keep in mind a device may support 802.11n, but not support 5ghz, and only support 2.4ghz. Read the specs carefully.


Access point = device that provides a WiFi network and allows clients to join. Once joined, clients pass their messages to the access point to then be sent onto another client. The alternative would be ad-hoc, where each wireless computer talks directly to each other.

Bridge = device that joins two different types of networks together, converting between the two physical types of networks. WiFi to Ethernet, Ethernet to Coax, Ethernet to Powerline, etc.

An access point is also a bridge. It's providing a WiFi network for wireless clients, and also bridges them into a wired ethernet network. Bridges just send over whatever traffic they see on either side of the connection to the other when appropriate.


No real downsides to this approach, if the router can go into pure access point/bridge mode.

I'll describe my previous setup where I did something similar, using two Airport Express devices. They can be a router, or just an access point/bridge device.

In my basement I had the cable modem, and it plugged into a router. The router had no wireless function, just wired. Router was set to hand out DHCP addresses from 192.168.0.10 to 192.168.0.200. The router then connected into the 24 port switch in the wiring cabinet. From there, ethernet in the walls provided two or more connections per room.

On one side of the house upstairs, I had an airport express (AE1) plugged in via ethernet to the wall. It was set to access point/bridge mode, channel 1, and just picked up an IP for it's self with DHCP from the router.

On the other side of the house, I had a second airport express (AE2) plugged in via ethernet to the wall. It was set to access point/bridge mode, channel 11, and also picked up a DHCP IP from the router.

Both AE1 and AE2 were set to the same wireless network name, and the same security settings. If I turned on a laptop, it would pick whichever one had the best signal. It would switch if I moved between AE1 to AE2 sides of the house. The laptop could also talk to any wired devices, no matter which AE it connected to. The entire network was one network, wireless via AE1, AE2 or wired.

For my setup I picked DHCP on the Airport Express units since they use a configuration utility that can discover them. I never needed to know the IP, so I didn't set a static IP.


For your use if you go with DLink equipment, and based on the one downstairs already, I'd recommend the following:
Main DLink in router mode in the basement, 192.168.0.1. Use channel 1, 6 or 11.
Second DLink in the attic, 192.168.0.2, set to access point/bridge mode, and the same 2.4ghz wireless network name/security setting as as DLink in the basement. Change the channel to 1, 6, or 11, and set this differently then DLink in the basement.

Reason I recommend 1, 6 or 11 is that the WiFi channels overlap a bit. 1 also talks a little on the frequency range of 2 and 3 (as well as some frequency space below channel 1). Channel 6 overlaps on 4, 5 7 and 8. Channel 11 overlaps a little on 9, and 10. You really don't want overlap especially between your two wireless spots in the house.

For 5ghz, there are many more channels available, so overlap is much less of a concern. If the access point in the attic does support 5ghz, I'd recommend setting that on a separate wireless network name. I for example have "Network 2" and "Network 5" to make it clear, and to let me join the 5ghz easily. Not all wireless clients pick between 2.4 and 5ghz properly if the networks are named the same.

Thanks Tom, this is exactly the info I needed. I will go the extra router route. I don't see any benefit in using a specific access point. As said, this means I'll also have a backup router in the house should one of the two fail. And BTW, your home setup us remarkably similar to mine.

It will probably not be cheaper though, since I've had my eye on a new Draytek router which costs 160 euro. But those Drayteks are the creme-de-la-creme for home use. Incredibly configurable. Not for the faint of heart really, but I've used them in the past and was always very impressed with their performance. (use the "Live web demo" link on that page I've linked to to browse the router menus)

So I'll most likely use this Draytek router as my new main router, and my current D-link DIR-655 and an access point. Also, the Draytek router does not support 5 Ghz, so I need not worry about that either. Problem solved.

Thanks again for the info!

As a no cost option, why not just move the access point to the middle floor?

I see what you are saying, but my technical room is downstairs. All my cabling and stuff is there. It's hard to move just this router to the middle floor, because centrally located above it is the hallway to the bedrooms upstairs. This hallway is the only area in the house where I haven't got any RJ-45 wall connectors. So that means I would have to connect it in one of the rooms surrounding the hall, immediately implying that the router would be located to one of the sides of the house and not centrally. Which would be no good for the reception on the other side of the house I'm guessing and essentially leaving me with the same problem, but horizontally instead of vertically in this case.

I have one of those D-Link DAP-1522's and my father has two of them on my recommendation. A few thoughts:

- It works great at 2.4GHz. It works like ass at 5GHz. Set it to 2.4GHz and be happy with it.

- You can have the same SSID as your main base station. So long as you've got the same WEP/WPA configuration, you'll be able to seamlessly roam.

- After a while, my DAP-1522's wireless started to flake out. I'm currently using it with the wireless turned off as a generic switch. Conversely, with other routers I've had, the hard ports have died while the wireless kept on going. Suffice to say that adequate cooling, and apparently vertical mounting so you get a "chimney effect" to channel the heat out, is important.

- The cool part of a DAP-1522 is the switch on the back, which can toggle it between AP mode and bridge mode. There was a time when we were doing some construction downstairs and had relocated bits of the home theater into our bedroom. You flip it from AP to bridge, and now everything you plug into it is back on your network.

What makes me sad is that they haven't updated this box since it was released two years ago. The world needs a "simultaneous dual band" version of this thing. Also nice would be more than four ports on the switch.

Thanks a lot for this info Dan, that's very enlightening! Especially this:


Even though I understood Tom's explanation, I couldn't really think what this bridge mode was good for. Your explanation really cleared things up for me. This switch is essentially a way of making wired ethernet devices wireless, by using a dedicated wireless switch.

Thanks for the info!

My apologies, I'm confused why the ports can't work in AP mode. Can't the switch remain operational? In Tomato you're even given the option to turn the WAN port into another LAN port.


I've always found it odd that everyone seems to standardize around the 4-port switch on these routers (well, except for Apple, who uses three, which is not enough). I remember an early episode of the GDGT podcast where one of them was salivating over some router that was being released that had 8 ports, but realizing how silly it was to be so excited about something like that I agree though, it would be nice not to have to have an additional switch right next to the router just to add one or two more devices...

Oh. Then this is what I want in the car, I bet.

The ports work great in AP mode. Here's a way to think about it:

- In AP mode, it's just a switch that happens to have a wireless AP attached to one of the ports.

- In bridge mode, the AP doesn't accept connections. Instead, it makes a connection elsewhere, thus "bridging" your wired gear to your base station elsewhere.

Will it also work as a wireless repeater? My old netgear APs are set up that way. I don't have any wire pulled (that will change next year when we do some work on the house), so I have two APs, one wired, one remote. The remote one pulls double duty, acting as a switch/AP and wirelessly repeating traffic back to the wired one. It works - I have full coverage in my house and out onto the deck, albeit more slowly (it's only noticeable when streaming video or otherwise moving large files/data).

More to the point, it won't repeat with WPA - it only repeats in WEP. I use 2.4 GHz with WPA on the wired AP getting my outside coverage, and I use the 5 GHz with WEP for repeating to the dark corners of my house. But I'd really like to get rid of the WEP.

-jk

But it would only take a couple minutes to try it and find out. I'll bet that horizontally across the house would work fine in this case.

Agreed. But it would also mean I would have to put a router in one of the bedrooms. I'm not particularly fond of that idea, for a number of reasons, some health related (this may be paranoid, I know), others because I'd hate the flickering of the leds in the room at night. I like to put these things where they belong: out of sight. This means the technical room downstairs and the attic.

Btw, I've found a good alternative: this TP-link router, configured as an access point. Wireless N 300 mbps speeds and 4 gigabit LAN ports! If you don't like the stock firmware (even though it's not bad at all), it can also be flashed with the DD-WRT firmware, which gives a lot more features (VLAN, VPN,...). Best of all: it costs about 45 euro! I can't think of another option which gives more bang for the buck! About the only thing it doesn't have a a 5 Ghz radio, but I don't really care about that anyway.

Yes, you're paranoid.


I know some guys who have a solution to that, though their price is a little steep. I think you can buy that particular space-age adhesive-backed opaque material for less than their asking price, though.

I hear you! But I also forgot to mention some technical issues, not in the least the fact that my switch is also downstairs in my technical room. This means I would have to have not only an "uplink" ethernet cable to the room, but also a "downlink" cable to my switch. And I've only got one ethernet cable running to that room.
I'm guessing I could also use a small intelligent switch and use two VLANs for that, but would end up costing me more than the 45 euro that TP-link router is going to cost me. And it's a far less elegant solution.

Unless you've got some super-duper Internet connection, all you need for those two links is 100Mbps Fast Ethernet, which runs on two pairs, and your cabling is most likely four pair. You can use one cable for both connections. There are even manufactured splitters for doing just this. (Ignore the bad reviews; those people don't understand what the device is for.)

I hear what you are saying, but I've got a 120 Mbps cable internet connection... Does that count as super-duper?

Wait, you're saying you have a wifi router that needs two Ethernet cables to work? I've never heard of that. I've only ever needed a single Ethernet cable to reach a wifi router. I've never heard of this uplink/downlink thing that you describe.

... Unless you mean that you've been erroneously running two ethernet cables between each of your switches all this time simply because you didn't understand how they worked...

If you see an ethernet hub with an "uplink" port, that just means it's an older hub without auto-negotiation, and "uplink" is the one port without the TX/RX wires crossed so you can route it to a patch panel. But even then you don't need two cables to connect it to another hub, you still just need the one cable...

No, I may have expressed myself somewhat awkward, leading to these misunderstandings.

I'll explain more in detail:
This is my setup: coax cable -> cable modem -> ethernet cable -> into WAN port of (wireless) router -> from LAN port of (wireless) router -> to 24 port gigabit switch -> to all ethernet wall connections.

If I put the router upstairs as you suggest, then I separate the modem and the wireless router from the same room. This in itself is not a problem, since I have an ethernet cable running up to that room. (so I can connect the router, and I would have good wireless connectivity)
BUT... once the router is connected, I also need an ethernet cable coming back down from one of the LAN ports of the router to the technical room again, to connect into the 24 ports switch.

It's that second cable that I'm lacking. Bitt's suggestion would solve that problem, as would a smart switch using VLAN's. Unfortunately Bitt's solution would slow down my internet connection and adding a smart switch would cost more than just buying one of those TP-link routers, configure it as an access point and be done with it.

I had a similar connection for years and I used, as you'd expect, two ethernet cables linking the router upstairs with the rest of the network components downstairs. One to the modem and the other to a switch. The switch is what provided all the other cabling throughout the house. The route was kept on the upstairs floor for better reception and itself acted as a switch for any connections that needed to be made in that room.

GAH!

Um, yeah, I see now.

Just plug the cable modem into the gigabit switch directly. In fact, everything will be faster that way. You're probably throttling your whole house's bandwidth by trying to go through the (likely inferior) switch in the wireless router.

Think of the wireless router as just another "device" that hangs off your network, not as an integral part of its main backbone.

Oh wait. Unless you're using the wireless router for your NAT firewall. The cable modem doesn't have that built-in already?

Or if the cable modem is a straight "modem", and there's PPPoE coming out of it, and the wireless router's dealing with that?

I don't think this is the case. Isn't it so that the traffic between all network devices connected to the switch won't even reach the router? Since it's located before the switch?
In any case, I'm very happy with the performance of my home LAN.


That's indeed exactly what I'm using it for. And not, the cable modem doesn't have that built-in If were to connect a pc directly to the modem, which I can do if I wanted to, the pc would not be protected by an NAT firewall. Cable modems have been working like that for years here. That was particulary fun in the pre-XP SP2 era, when the OS also didn't come with any firewall of any kind. All the cable user's pc's were wide open to the network.

No, no PPPoE. That's only used here for ADSL, not for cable modems.

I sometimes buy kit because of the particular flickering they have...:-)

Okay then here's your deal. You need two ethernet cables running to the wireless router, right, but there's only one cat-5 cable running through the wall to the upstairs area where you want to place it. Right?

Well, there's an old trick. Cat-5 cables, provided they're wired correctly, are eight conductors, only four of which are used for ethernet. I've successfully used ethernet splitters (one splitter must be used on each end of the cable run) to make one cat-5 cable in the wall carry two separate ethernet runs. This is a perfect application for that.

Edit: I notice Bitt already said that up above.

Only 4 wires are used for 100mbit ethernet. However, all 8 are used with 1000mbit (gigabit), and that is the speed he needs between his cable modem and router if he wants to use his full 120mbit internet bandwidth.

His current router, and the ones he has looked at as a replacement all offer Gigabit WAN ports. Some places in the world have decided to keep building faster intertubes for all the big trucks

Indeed! I've created the network installation from the ground up to be as fast as is (currently) possible for a reasonable price, and that (currently) equals gigabit ethernet. But I've looked further than that, eg. all my in-wall cabling is Cat7, just to be future proof. Once 10 gigabit hardware becomes affordable for the masses, I plan on upgrading the necessary hardware like eg. the switch. Cat7 should be future proof enough for speeds up to 100 gigabit, especially in houses where the cable lengths usually aren't longer than a couple of meters.

I realise this was a gamble, but I really don't believe the future is fibre, at least not for in-house installations. I can see fiber-to-the-home happening, but I believe for the in-house distribution of the signal, copper will remain the way to go. Then again, what do I know? As said, it was just a gamble. But should a different technique end up being used in the future, I should still be able to switch quite easy. I've made sure of that.

Holy crap.

Yeah, that counts as super-duper in my world.